Legal Opinion
Gardner v. Littlejohn
Ho-Chunk Nation Trial Court
Decided February 2, 2011No. CV 10-47PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*433ORDER
AMANDA L. ROCKMAN, Associate Judge.
INTRODUCTION
The Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this defamation action, and concludes that defamation existed under the customs and traditions of the Ho-Chunk Nation. The Court finds that the plaintiff has shown that she was not terminated from her employment for an inability to administer third party billing, and thus did not seek to have said termination overturned due to nepotism. Therefore, the Court finds that the April 14, 2010 document penned by the “Nioxawani Political Activists,” which was titled, Contract…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Tenney v. BrandhoveSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Gravel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. HelstoskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- State v. BenoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
- Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. SchaeferDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gardner v. LittlejohnHo-Chunk Nation Supreme Court · 2015